Christie, G, Horner, B, Scanlon, AT, Lemon, J & Williams, B 2019, 'A ground up approach to revegetation in the arid zone', in AB Fourie & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2019: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure
, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 741-752, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_rep/1915_59_Scanlon
Revegetation of mine sites in the arid zone is inherently challenging because of high costs, poor plant survival in harsh conditions, and difficulties in managing expectations of various stakeholders. A ‘top down’ approach to site revegetation uses predominantly mid- and upper-storey species and, in South Australia, typically involves planting of tubestock or line seeding and associated activities, such as watering and weeding. In contrast, a ‘ground up’ approach involves sowing a site with native seeds of colonising plants using a cropping methodology. A comparative analysis of three approaches to revegetation was conducted, these were: 1) a ‘top down’ approach using tubestock; 2) a ‘top down’ approach using line seeding; 3) a ‘ground up’ approach using agricultural spreading machinery (hereafter broadacre seeding) and native colonising species.
The performance of each approach was gauged against identified criteria for mine site closure in semi-arid and arid areas. The analysis showed that revegetation with ‘top down’ tubestock methods was least effective and the ‘ground up’ broadacre seeding most effective. Specific areas in which the ‘ground up’ approach outperformed the ‘top down’ approaches included increasing site stability, plant survivorship, vegetation structure (complexity), system function, decreasing weeds, cost and risk. Four case studies demonstrating the ‘ground up’ broadacre seeding technique are presented including the revegetation of two capped sites (a power station’s ash dam and a waste infill site) and the conversion of two ex-agricultural sites to native vegetation areas. Broadacre seeding with native colonising species provides many benefits to site stability and productivity and is a cost-effective approach to broad-scale revegetation in the arid zone.
Keywords: arid zone, erosion, dust mitigation, native seed, revegetation, tubestock, succession
Australian Government 2019, ‘20 Million Trees Program’, National Landcare Program, viewed 1 April 2019,
Bowman, D 2013, Restoration Won’t Work: A New Way to Fix Old Mines, The Conversation, viewed 26 February 2018,
Carr, D, Bonney, N & Millsom, D 2007, ‘The effect of sowing season on the reliability of direct seeding’, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, publication no. 07/105.
Clements, FE 1916, Plant Succession: Analysis of the Development of Vegetation, Carnegie Institution, Washington.
Commonwealth of Australia 2019, Climate Data Online, Bureau of Meteorology, viewed 27 February 2019,
Crettenden, J 2013, ‘Eyre Peninsula Farming Systems 2013 Summary’, SARDI, Government of South Australia, viewed 1 April 2019,
Doley, D & Audet, P 2013, ‘Adopting novel ecosystems as suitable rehabilitation alternatives for former mine sites’, Ecological Processes, vol. 2, pp. 1–11.
Environments by Design 2016, NRM Review and Price Guide for Significant Environmental Benefits, Government of South Australia, viewed 26 February 2019,
Florabank 2019, Tubestock planting, Australian Government, Greening Australia and CSIRO, viewed 20 March 2019,
Government of South Australia 2011, ‘Direct seeding – Natural Resources SA’, Fact Sheet no. 4, viewed 1 April 20-19,
Government of Western Australia 2019, Pearl bluebush, Department of Primary Industries and Regions, viewed 21 March 2019,
Haby, NA 2017, ‘Long-term revegetation success of severely degraded chenopod shrublands’, The Rangeland Journal, vol. 39, pp. 341‒354.
Kent, K, Earl, G, Mullins, B, Lunt, I & Webster, R 2002, Native Vegetation Guide for the Riverina: Notes for Land Managers on its Management and Revegetation, Charles Sturt University, Bathrust.
Lance, S 2015, Revegetation Research in the Murray Mallee – Improving the Success of Revegetation for Biodiversity and Habitat Restoration, South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board, Government of South Australia.
Lange, R & Purdie, R 1976, ‘Western myall (Acacia sowdenii), its survival prospects and management needs’, Australian Rangeland Journal, vol. 1, pp. 64–49.
Morgan, JW 1999, ‘Have tubestock plantings successfully established populations of rare grassland species into reintroduction sites in western Victoria?’, Biological Conservation, vol. 89, pp. 235–243.
Natural Resources South Australia 2019a, ‘Bucks for Bush, Direct seeding: Fact Sheet 5’, viewed 1 April 2019,
Natural Resources South Australia 2019b, ‘Bucks for Bush, Revegetation Planting: Fact Sheet 4’, viewed 1 April 2019,
Nicholas, PWB, Morris, CE & Keith, DA 2010, ‘Testing a facilitation model for ecosystem restoration: does tree planting restore ground layer species in a grassy woodland?’, Austral Ecology, vol. 35, pp. 888–897.
Palma, AC & Laurance, SGW 2015, ‘A review of the use of direct seeding and seedling plantings in restoration: what do we know and where should we go?’, Applied Vegetation Science, vol. 18, pp. 561–568.
Piggot, JP, Brown, PH & Williams, MM 1987, ‘Direct seeding trees on farmland in the Western Australian wheatbelt’, Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, report 146.
Rotundo, JL & Aguiar, MR 2005, ‘Litter effects on plant regeneration in arid lands: a complex balance between seed retention, seed longevity and soil-seed contact’, Journal of Ecology, vol. 93, pp. 829–838.
Standards Reference Group (SER) 2017, ‘National Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Australia’, Society for Ecological Restoration Australasia (SERA), Australia.
Succession Ecology 2018, Post Seeding Monitoring: June 2018 Assessment, Succession Ecology and Flinders Power, report ES1118, Adelaide.
Trees for Life (TFL) 2019, Direct Seeding, viewed 1 April 2019,